[Scons-dev] SCons doesn't bootstrap without libxml2

[Bill Deegan]

Anatoly,

bootstrap.py is not meant to be run by users, only developers.

-Bill


On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 8:24 PM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>wrote:


> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 7:21 AM, anatoly techtonik <techtonik at gmail.com>

> wrote:

> > On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

> >> On 19.02.2014 00:14, anatoly techtonik wrote:

> >>>

> >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Dirk Bächle <tshortik at gmx.de> wrote:

> >>>>

> >>>> [...]

> >>>>

> >>>>

> >>>> Okay, and when you have a simple SConstruct in a folder like

> >>>> "/tmp/sconstest", change into this folder via "cd /tmp/sconstest" and

> >>>> then

> >>>> call

> >>>>

> >>>> python /full/path/to/scons/repo/bootstrap.py

> >>>>

> >>>> , does that work in 2.3.0 without having libxml2/lxml installed or do

> you

> >>>> see an error?

> >>>

> >>> There is no error and should not be.

> >>

> >>

> >> Good, so you are able to develop SCons and run a checked-out, or even

> >> modified, version of SCons against a build project, right?

> >

> > No. The user experience is that the run failed while previously the

> > same user scenario worked without problem.

> >

> >> Because in your earlier mail you said:

> >>

> >> "

> >>

> >> My opinion is that by adding additional dependencies to run the SCons

> >> without errors from a fresh checkout we are significantly increasing

> >> contribution

> >> barrier and discouraging people from participating.

> >>

> >> People need to checkout and run to see the power of SCons. Not read,

> >> checkout, install, setup, run cycle. Something like this.

> >>

> >> "

> >> But this is obviously not the case.

> >

> > The two things do not contradict.

> >

> >> When following the first instructions in

> >> the top-level README.rst, people are able to call SCons without

> installing

> >> it and without having to resolve any further dependencies.

> >

> > Ok. I'll correct myself. For users:

> > - read, checkout, read, run

> > + checkout, run

> >

> > For me:

> > - edit, runtests.py -a

> > + edit, bootstrap.py

> >

> >> So there is

> >> actually no reason to fear that users or first-time developers get a bad

> >> first impression of SCons, when they try to use the latest development

> >> version.

> >

> > Just make a corridor testing. Mine failed.

> >

> >> Can you see that too, and agree with me that we don't have a real

> problem in

> >> this very specific use case (cloning the repo, and calling SCons

> directly)?

> >

> > It depends on how seriously you take the user experience discipline, but

> > let's just say that I am a stubborn conservative freak and want the

> previous

> > behavior back. =)

>

> And I agree the the subject line is confusing. SCons does bootstrap ok, but

> for users it is not evident, because after bootstrap process continues

> there is

> immediately a build phase which fails.

> --

> anatoly t.

> _______________________________________________

> Scons-dev mailing list

> Scons-dev at scons.org

> http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-dev

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://two.pairlist.net/pipermail/scons-dev/attachments/20140218/2d1de91e/attachment-0001.htm>